BACKGROUND: The Intra-aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial has demonstrated the safety of intra-aortic balloon (IABP) support in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock, but no beneficial effect on mortality. Currently, intra-aortic balloon pumping is still the most widely used support device. However, little is known about the economic implications associated with this device. METHODS: Data of 600 patients included in the IABP-SHOCK II trial (registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00491036) with follow-up at 30 days, 6 and 12 months were subjected to an economic analysis. Patients with cardiogenic shock complicating AMI were randomly assigned to IABP additionally to optimal medical therapy (OMT; n = 301) or OMT alone (n = 299) before early revascularization. Costs were calculated from the perspective of a German healthcare payer. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were performed using quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and reduction in New York Heart Association (NYHA) and Canadian Cardiac Society (CCS) class as effectiveness measures. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in overall costs between the IABP (33,155 ± 14,593 <euro>) and the control group (32,538 ± 14,031 <euro>, p < 0.00001). This was predominantly attributed to the IABP costs in the IABP (760 ± 174 <euro>) versus control group (64 ± 218 <euro>, p < 0.0001) whilst the intensive care unit costs did not differ between the groups (29,177 ± 12,013 <euro> and 29,401 ± 12,063 <euro>, p = 0.82). There was no significant difference in QALY or NYHA and CCS reduction, respectively (p = n.s.). CONCLUSION:IABP support is associated with higher healthcare costs as compared to conservative treatment regimens. Clinically, IABP support cannot generally be recommended in AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock in the absence of a mortality benefit. However, economically considering the relatively little contribution to overall costs generated by IABP therapy it may still be considered if clinical scenarios with an IABP-induced benefit may be identified in the future.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The Intra-aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial has demonstrated the safety of intra-aortic balloon (IABP) support in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock, but no beneficial effect on mortality. Currently, intra-aortic balloon pumping is still the most widely used support device. However, little is known about the economic implications associated with this device. METHODS: Data of 600 patients included in the IABP-SHOCK II trial (registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00491036) with follow-up at 30 days, 6 and 12 months were subjected to an economic analysis. Patients with cardiogenic shock complicating AMI were randomly assigned to IABP additionally to optimal medical therapy (OMT; n = 301) or OMT alone (n = 299) before early revascularization. Costs were calculated from the perspective of a German healthcare payer. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were performed using quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and reduction in New York Heart Association (NYHA) and Canadian Cardiac Society (CCS) class as effectiveness measures. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in overall costs between the IABP (33,155 ± 14,593 <euro>) and the control group (32,538 ± 14,031 <euro>, p < 0.00001). This was predominantly attributed to the IABP costs in the IABP (760 ± 174 <euro>) versus control group (64 ± 218 <euro>, p < 0.0001) whilst the intensive care unit costs did not differ between the groups (29,177 ± 12,013 <euro> and 29,401 ± 12,063 <euro>, p = 0.82). There was no significant difference in QALY or NYHA and CCS reduction, respectively (p = n.s.). CONCLUSION: IABP support is associated with higher healthcare costs as compared to conservative treatment regimens. Clinically, IABP support cannot generally be recommended in AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock in the absence of a mortality benefit. However, economically considering the relatively little contribution to overall costs generated by IABP therapy it may still be considered if clinical scenarios with an IABP-induced benefit may be identified in the future.
Authors: Scott Ramsey; Richard Willke; Andrew Briggs; Ruth Brown; Martin Buxton; Anita Chawla; John Cook; Henry Glick; Bengt Liljas; Diana Petitti; Shelby Reed Journal: Value Health Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Peter L Kolominsky-Rabas; Peter U Heuschmann; Daniela Marschall; Martin Emmert; Nikoline Baltzer; Bernhard Neundörfer; Oliver Schöffski; Karl J Krobot Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-03-30 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: David Gregory; Dennis J Scotti; Gregory de Lissovoy; Igor Palacios; Simon Dixon; Brijeshwar Maini; William O'Neill Journal: Am Health Drug Benefits Date: 2013-03
Authors: Elliott M Antman; Daniel T Anbe; Paul Wayne Armstrong; Eric R Bates; Lee A Green; Mary Hand; Judith S Hochman; Harlan M Krumholz; Frederick G Kushner; Gervasio A Lamas; Charles J Mullany; Joseph P Ornato; David L Pearle; Michael A Sloan; Sidney C Smith; Joseph S Alpert; Jeffrey L Anderson; David P Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Raymond J Gibbons; Gabriel Gregoratos; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon Ann Hunt; Alice K Jacobs Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-08-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jasper Boeddinghaus; Tobias Reichlin; Thomas Nestelberger; Raphael Twerenbold; Yvette Meili; Karin Wildi; Petra Hillinger; Maria Rubini Giménez; Janosch Cupa; Lukas Schumacher; Marie Schubera; Patrick Badertscher; Sydney Corbière; Karin Grimm; Christian Puelacher; Zaid Sabti; Dayana Flores Widmer; Nicolas Schaerli; Nikola Kozhuharov; Samyut Shrestha; Tobias Bürge; Patrick Mächler; Michael Büchi; Katharina Rentsch; Òscar Miró; Beatriz López; F Javier Martin-Sanchez; Esther Rodriguez-Adrada; Beata Morawiec; Damian Kawecki; Eva Ganovská; Jiri Parenica; Jens Lohrmann; Andreas Buser; Dagmar I Keller; Stefan Osswald; Christian Mueller Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 5.460